The property is a detached
house, with Hasle Road to the west and Beech Drive to the east. The application was for a proposed full-width
dormer on an elevation facing towards Hasle Road.

The first key issue was
whether the proposed dormer would be contrary to Class B, part B.1(b), which states that “development is not
permitted by Class B if … any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, extend beyond the plane
of any existing roof slope which forms the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse and fronts a
highway”.

The Inspector stated the
following:

“The elevation, on which
the dormer would be located, does face and is prominent from Halse Road. However, that elevation is clearly the
back of the house and is separated and partially screened from Halse Road by a fence and hedge. Whilst Beech
Drive is a cul-de-sac and a lower status highway than Halse Road, the elevation facing Beech Drive contains the
main entrance to the house. This is the elevation that any visitors to the property would approach; it is wholly
in the public view from Beech Drive and is quite obviously the front of the house.

The Council contends that
a property may have more than one principal elevation. There is no definition of principal elevation in the
GPDO. However, Class B, B.1(b) of the GPDO clearly refers to “the principal elevation.” The use of the definite
article, combined with the Oxford English Dictionary definition of “principal” as “first in order of
importance”, cited by the appellant, suggests to me that there can only be one elevation on a
dwellinghouse to which the Class B, B.1(b) exception can apply.”

The second key issue was
whether the use of “bitument bedded limestone chippings on three layers of bitument roofing felt” on the flat
roof of the dormer would be contrary to Class B, part B.2(a), which requires that “the materials used in any
exterior work shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing
dwellinghouse”.

The Inspector stated the
following:

“The flat roof of the
dormer would consist of bitument bedded limestone chippings on three layers of bitument roofing felt and, seen
side by side, this material is unlikely to appear similar to the grey concrete pantiles of the existing roof.
However, being at existing ridge height, the flat roof would not be seen from any normal public or private
vantage points and so the felt would not have a bearing on the appearance of the roof as added to or altered.
This approach is consistent with that taken by another Inspector in appeal [October 2009 -
Code a00036]. Furthermore, the Informal Views document asks planning authorities to consider the fact that a
flat roof of a dormer at, or near, ridge height will often not be visible. For the reasons given, I consider
that the proposed material for the flat roof would not give rise to a breach of the condition in Class B,
B.2(a).”

·Only one elevation can constitute “the principal
elevation”.[Note:
This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in
the “Reference Section” on “Principal Elevation”].[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b),
E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)].

·This appeal decision provides an
example of the types of factors that should be taken into consideration when determining which
elevation is “the principal elevation”.[Relevant to: “Principal Elevation”, A.1(d), B.1(b),
E.1(b), F.1, G.1(b)].

·The use of felt (or similar) for
the flat roof of a dormer (assuming that the visibility of the roof would be limited) would not be
contrary to Class B, part B.2(a). The Inspector indicates (or implies) that the felt would not need to
have a similar colour to the materials on the existing house.[Note: This would appear to contradict
at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on
“Materials”][Relevant to: “Materials”, A.3(a), B.2(a)].

Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):